The existence of a landlord-tenant relationship can be disputed in civil courts, even with Section 25's jurisdiction exclusion, allowing tenants to contest eviction orders when legitimacy is asserted.

1. Leave granted.

2. An application for Ejectment was filed by the Appellants and Proforma Respondents 2 to 21 for ejectment of Respondent No. 1 on the ground of nonpayment of rent. The application was filed under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The application was allowed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Ferozepur by Order dated 13.09.1972. The appeal filed by the first respondent before the Collector, Ferozepur under S.24 of 'the Act' was dismissed vide order dated 04.09.1973. The Commissioner by order dated 04.02.1974 on revision filed by the first respondent recommended to the Financial Commissioner, Punjab for setting aside the order leaving the parties to seek relief through the Civil Court. This reference was disallowed and the revision petition of the first respondent was dismissed by the Commissioner, Punjab vide his order dated 22.08.1974. The review filed by the first respondent was dismissed. The first respondent instituted a Suit wherein the relief sought as noted in the judgment of the Trial Court is:
... declaration to the effect that agricultural land measuring 594 kanals 17 marlas as per details given in the heading of the plaint, situated in Jhoke Harl Har, Tehsil Ferozepure as entered in Jamabandi for the year 1965-66 is owned by Mandir Jhoke Hari Har (Public Religious Endowment) through Shri Inder Singh son of Harnam Singh resident of village Jhoke Hari Har, one of the worshippers and defacto trustee of Mandir Jhoke Hari Har (defendant No.18) and defendant No. 1 to 17 have got no concern with the land and a decree for ejectment of land in dispute obtained by defendant No. 1 to 17 against the plaintiff from the Assistant Collector Grade - I, Ferozepure is nullity and without jurisdiction with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants No. I to 17 from taking actual possession of the suit land."

3. The Trial Court, by Judgment dated 18.11.1978, decreed the Suit. The Appeal carried by the appellants before the 1st Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, was dismissed. By the impugned Decree and Judgment, the Regular Second Appeal No. 1777 of 1981, has been dismissed.

4. We heard the learned Counsel for the Appellants and learned Counsel for the Respondents. The only question, which falls for our decision, revolves around the interpretation of S.25 of the Act. S.25 of the Act reads as follows:
"S.25. Exclusion of courts and authorities - Except in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the validity of any proceedings or order taken or made under this Act shall not be called in question in any court or before any other authority."

5. In other words, the only contention asserted by the appellants is that the suit filed by the first respondent is clearly barred. On the other hand, the contention of the respondents is that, having regard to both the facts and law, the Suit is maintainable.

6. THE FINDINGS IN THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
It is necessary to notice the case of the appellants. They claim that they purchased the suit property which measured 594 Kanals and 17 Marlas by sale deed dated 16.11.1956 from Mahant Ramji Dass. The first respondent was the tenant in the said land. The case of the first respondent, on the other hand, was that, he obtained the Suit land on lease on 20.10.1955 from Mahant Ramji Dass as the Manager of the Mandir for a period of five years on payment of Rs.1,000/- per annum as rent. Thereafter, the suit property was leased to him for a